September 15, 2014

"Do you know how many times I’ve been called, the cops have been called … just because we’re black and he’s white."

"You can take me down to the court office and I can make a scene about it. You know that I have a publicist and I work as an actress," said the actress.

"I’m mildly interested, I’m mildly interested that you have a publicist...Thank you for bringing up the race card. I never hear that," said the cop.

"Daddy, Daddy, I can’t believe it — all the things that are happening with the cops right now. I can’t even make out with my boyfriend in front of my f–king studio without getting the cops called on me. I don’t have to give him my ID because it’s my right to sit on the f–king street corner and make out with my boyfriend! That’s my right!" Said the actress to her father, via phone.

"Keep yelling, it really helps, it really helps. I’d already be gone [if you'd show an ID], just so you know, I’d be gone,” said the cop.
Posted by Ann Althouse at 5:37 PM
Tags: , , , ,

224 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 224 of 224
Jason said...

pst314: You miss the point. Racism has nothing to do with it. She could have been the Whore of Babylon reenacting the Tijuana Mule Show on stage at the Hollywood Shell. The law still does not compel her to show ID to cops.

9/17/14, 1:11 PM
jr565 said...

From TMZ:
http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/17/django-unchained-actress-racism-lapd-daniele-watts-pictures-photos/


I can't really tell for sure because the stupid TMZ logo is covering a lot of stuff, but supposedly showing they were doing far more than just kissing. So cops were in fact right to investigate complaint (theyd' be right to anyway, but those making the complaint were telling the truth)

9/17/14, 1:35 PM
jr565 said...

"For precisely that reason, the scope of seizures of the person on less than probable cause that Terry 365*365 permits is strictly circumscribed to limit the degree of intrusion they cause. Terry encounters must be brief; the suspect must not be moved or asked to move more than a short distance; physical searches are permitted only to the extent necessary to protect the police officers involved during the encounter; and, most importantly, the suspect must be free to leave after a short time and to decline to answer the questions put to him.

"[T]he person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Id., at 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). "
All of which the cop conformed with. She's the fool that got herself in handcuffs.

9/17/14, 1:37 PM
Jason said...

That line of thinking went out the window when the cop admitted that if she had only given up her ID he "would have been gone 30 minutes ago."

Clearly there was nothing else to investigate or observe.

That's an admission of 30 minutes of illegal detention.

9/17/14, 1:45 PM
Matt said...

It has been fun watching Jason make a fool of himself.

Read this, Jason.

"So, in short, unless the officers have reason to see your ID that is related to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, they cannot force you to provide your ID."

Source: A Constitutional Law Attorney in California!

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/in-california--if-police-ask-to-see-my-photo-id-wh-623056.html

Based on the calls to police, the officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, thus, he could insist upon her showing id/identifying herself.

Also, from: https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/your-rights-and-police

"If you are stopped for questioning, DO give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal."

I know, Jason, you are going to latch onto "MAY be illegal" but if you do so it is due to your own lack of logical thinking skills. But you need to think harder. That same sentence is saying, "If you don’t provide id, you may be arrested, and the arrest will likely be legal."

I have hesitated to respond because I knew that if anyone provided evidence you would move the goalposts. No doubt, you will do it again. "How do we know that's really a lawyer?" and other such bullshit. Try this instead, YOU find the California statute that describes when an officer may require one id themselves. So far, I have seen no self-purported lawyer agree with you in this case.

Does that mean police are never wrong and never step over the line? NO! But in this case, you are just so wrong.

9/17/14, 1:52 PM
Jason said...

. Based on the calls to police, the officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, thus, he could insist upon her showing id/identifying herself.

Wrong.

Regarding your ACLU link, go down one more bullet point:

DO remember you have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested or detained for refusing to answer questions. But it can look suspicious to the police.

So, again, that supports me, not you.

And the law itself supports me, not you.

Your anonymous "constitutional law attorney in CA" from avvo.com Has it wrong. "Reasonable suspicion" doesn't cut the mustard. Probable cause might... it does in FL, where I live. In FL, you can be required to show ID after you have been arrested, not before. But reasonable suspicion does not provide sufficient justification for an arrest.

CA law does not require you to show ID.

Look at the law itself, and the case law at the CA level and federal level both. I notice you are avoiding citing the law itself, and you don't know how to read even the "Law for Dummies" ACLU link.

In the absence of a state stop and ID law, you will not find an obligation to show ID here.

And no, I'm not moving the goalposts. The goalposts have been exactly the same, throughout: What does the law in CA.

It does not matter what some idiot talking head on CNN says the CNN legal analysts think.

Furthermore, You don't even seem to know where to look things up. I mean, "avvo.com?" Really? Your BS detector doesn't kick into gear?

9/17/14, 2:07 PM
Jason said...

er, ... "What does the law in CA say?"

Well, it sure as shit doesn't say she had to furnish an ID.

9/17/14, 2:09 PM
Jason said...

Hmm. Did you just try to cite an anonymous "lawyer" who doesn't know the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause?" And one who's conclusion that you do have to show ID is in direct conflict with the SCOTUS passage JR cited immediate above?

You've got to get better at this.

If she is required to show ID, show me the CA statute.

9/17/14, 2:18 PM
Matt said...

Sure enough, Jason selectively reads...

"If you are stopped for questioning,
DON’T refuse to give your name, you could be arrested."

That's the ACLU of California talking.

You also have not cited relevant law either. If an officer has probable cause to suspect someone broke the law, he can request id of the suspect. IF that person refuses, they are obstructing justice, thus, satisfying 836 (1)(a) of the law you cited.

You are saying, I believe, that refusing to provide id to an officer, who has reasonable suspicion, is not obstruction. Care to offer proof?

"But reasonable suspicion does not provide sufficient justification for an arrest. "

She was NOT arrested, stupid! How many times does this need to be pointed out to you?

Oh, and avvo.com came up from a web search. What exactly is wrong with the site other than it did not do your bidding?

9/17/14, 2:21 PM
Matt said...

Jason, who should we listen to for legal advice? You, Mr. Angry Internet Guy who calls folks fascists for not agreeing with him or the Northern California ACLU?

I think I will listen to the ACLU on this one. Unless they are proto-fascists too? Are they?

9/17/14, 2:30 PM
Shanna said...

DO remember you have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested or detained for refusing to answer questions.

All that says is that you cannot be arrested for not answering questions. You could still be arrested and detained for suspicion of a crime. I mean, if you stop and think for a second, this makes complete sense. Police can take you to the station for questioning even if they did not witness a crime. How could the police do anything if that were not the case?

Well, it sure as shit doesn't say she had to furnish an ID.

From the comment above, sounds like she doesn’t have to furnish a physical ID but she does have to identify herself and wait until that identity can be confirmed if she doesn’t. So I'm not sure you are correct about California law. Are you a lawyer? If not, why do you so quickly dismiss a lawyers opinion, CNN analyst/internet person or not?

9/17/14, 2:33 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...

"Do you know how many times I’ve been called, the cops have been called … just because we’re black and he’s white," Watts said.

Django Unchained Actress -- We Got the Pictures ... And It Looks Like Sex

It's the skank, not the color of the skank that gets the cops called.

9/17/14, 3:36 PM
jr565 said...

Jason wrote:
DO remember you have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested or detained for refusing to answer questions. But it can look suspicious to the police.

And she was. Why they bitch about your right to not show your id if the outcome is you might be detained. She got exactly what was coming to her. And her husband, who simply complied suffered nothing. Except embarrassment that his wife was making such a spectacle of herself.

9/17/14, 5:57 PM
jr565 said...

Jason wrote;
That line of thinking went out the window when the cop admitted that if she had only given up her ID he "would have been gone 30 minutes ago."

Because instead of just letting him investigate the incident and most likely drive away without so much as issuing a summons he instead had to spend 30 minutes coddling a baby. Getting her handcuffed, ahaving her brought back to the scene. etc. She wasted his and her time for no reason except to act like a twat.

9/17/14, 6:02 PM
Jason said...

She was NOT arrested, stupid! How many times does this need to be pointed out to you?

Try reading in context. The sentence referring to arrests referred to the law in Florida, genius. Not to the one in California, which would be governed by California law.

IF that person refuses, they are obstructing justice, thus, satisfying 836 (1)(a) of the law you cited.

Wrong again, Sparky. Exercising one's right to remain silent or refusing to identify oneself is neither Obstructing Justice nor is it Obstructing an officer under the California Penal Code. Providing a false name is a misdemeanor (CPC 149.10) but nowhere in the code will you find that it is a misdemeanor to refuse to identify yourself at all in stops like this.

Further, let me mention a couple of cases in California in which the decision clearly supports my position that she had no obligation whatsoever to identify herself: People v. Quiroga and In re Gregory S. (1980) 112 Cal. App. 3d 764 [169 Cal.Rptr. 540].

In the Quiroga case, the court ruled:

"These statutory provisions lead to the conclusion that a refusal to disclose personal identification following arrest for a misdemeanor or infraction cannot constitute a violation of Penal Code section 148."

The court recognized that the public has a stronger interest in identifying people who may be guilty of felonies, but refused to apply that to minor offenses in california (public lewdness and indecent exposure are not felonies in CA)

Section 148 can reasonably be construed as applying to nondisclosure of identity following arrest for felonies, but not minor offenses, if this exception applies to the provisions cited above dealing with arrests for minor offenses.

The court also recognized an obligation of the accused to provide identifying information AT THE BOOKING INTERVIEW. Not before. And this was simply just to run the place, because the system needs some kind of ID to arrange bail, conduct an arraignment, etc.

In In Re Gregory S., the court ruled: "We find no authority to support the court's legal conclusion that a person who merely refuses to identify himself or to answer questions in a context similar to that before us thereby violates Penal Code section 148 or otherwise furnishes ground for arrest.






9/17/14, 6:10 PM
Jason said...

o I'm not sure you are correct about California law. Are you a lawyer? If not, why do you so quickly dismiss a lawyers opinion, CNN analyst/internet person or not?

I dismiss all lawyers' opinions of the law, or anyone else's opinions of the law, when they are not grounded in the law itself. So should you. Otherwise, we have no law.

I have a lot of respect for a medical degree, too. But if someone shows up to treat a child for Scarlet Fever and says "we're going to cure the disease through the application of leeches," then I'm finding a new doctor. You don't need a medical degree to know that Scarlet Fever is generally treated with antibiotics.

So it is with the law. I respect a law degree. But if someone is going to show up and blow the difference between, say, reasonable suspicion on one hand and probable cause on the other, then it's pretty safe to assume he should be riding a desk reviewing templated real estate documents somewhere and playing High Stakes Mad Libs at Legal Zoom, at best.


9/17/14, 6:16 PM
Joe said...

You also have not cited relevant law either. If an officer has probable cause to suspect someone broke the law, he can request id of the suspect. IF that person refuses, they are obstructing justice, thus, satisfying 836 (1)(a) of the law you cited.

It is my understanding that Hiibel says otherwise.

On top of that there is no 836 (1)(a). There is an 836 (a)(1). 836 (a) reads, in part:

(a) A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following circumstances occur:

(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence.

(2) The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in
the officer's presence.

(3) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact, has been committed.

None of this applies since Watts and her boyfriend were allegedly committing a misdemeanor. Moreover, it has nothing to do with identifying yourself. California law simply does not require you EVER identify yourself to law enforcement, even if under arrest. (However, once you are under arrest, they could fingerprint you and get a warrant to search your person and, perhaps, car and using that to determine who you are.)

Also note that the law is about arresting someone, not detaining them.

Again, the question is what is legal, not what is smart.

9/17/14, 6:18 PM
Jason said...

Matt

Jason, who should we listen to for legal advice? You, Mr. Angry Internet Guy who calls folks fascists for not agreeing with him or the Northern California ACLU?

The ACLU has it right. You are not obligated to ID yourself when stopped, detained or even arrested by police (until you get to the booking interview, anyway).

You aren't reading the ACLU page correctly.

At any rate, you shouldn't listen to me for legal advice and you shouldn't rely on generic crap from the ACLU, either, that has to be oversimplified.

Look to the law, and apply the law to the facts.

Don't try to deny the law, or try to pretend it's what you want it to be rather than what it actually is.

Watts was not obligated to identify herself.

9/17/14, 6:20 PM
chickelit said...

Jason: You're sounding more and more like a putz. Give it up.

There are plenty of real incidences of unjustified profiling and police overreach. Find a real one and hammer home your points.

You're just digging deeper.

9/17/14, 7:41 PM
Shanna said...

I dismiss all lawyers' opinions of the law, or anyone else's opinions of the law, when they are not grounded in the law itself.

The problem with this is that the law is complicated and involves more than the written text. So how do you know you aren't missing something?

9/18/14, 8:37 AM
Jason said...

Who's talking about unjustified profiling here? We're discussing the pretty narrow question of whether a California pedestrian stopped on the street has a legal obligation to show ID upon request .

do try to stay with the class.

A simple "oh, I did not realize the courts had already up heals a 4th amendment and 5th amendment right to show ID, precisely as you said" would suffice.

9/18/14, 8:45 AM
Matt said...

Jason said...

"I dismiss all lawyers' opinions of the law, or anyone else's opinions of the law, when they are not grounded in the law itself. So should you."

Jason, your opinions are hereby dismissed. Have a nice day!

'Whattya mean you are dismissing my opinions! I cited law!'

Did you cite ALL relevant California law? I don't think you did. I don't KNOW that you didn't but, quite frankly, I have neither the time nor interest to parse the code to figure it out. I'll continue to defer to the ACLU on this. If you really want to take it up with someone, give them a call. When they treat you like a whack job, take note.

Jason said...

"Two California attorneys here say no, there is no requirement to show ID."

So, you will take the word of two attorneys in a random Seattle news article even though there is not a lot of context provided. Were those attorneys talking about cases with probable cause or just random encounters with police? Do you know? Of course you don't, but they agreed with you so that was good enough.

Now, when I cited avvo.com, which also had opinions of California attorneys but with more context and details, you dismissed that source out of hand because... Oh, that's right. You never said why other than they did not agree with you, Random Angry Internet Guy.

Jason, engaging with you is as fruitful as engaging with Crack. Any reasonable argument contrary to yours is dismissed out of hand and punctuated with epithets. At least Crack is doing some strange performance art so he can plausibly deny that his words actually reflect his opinions. What's your excuse?

9/18/14, 9:06 AM
Jason said...

Has chickelet or anyone else pointed to any law that California pedestrians have to provide ID to a police officer on demand, yet? I haven't seen it.

Let's make it even easier: Is there any kind of law on the books that says people in California have to have an identification of any kind whatsoever on their persons?

9/19/14, 11:49 AM
Matt said...

Jason, there is a big difference between "on demand" and "when reasonable suspicion exists that a crime has been committed". Also, there is a difference between "have an identification of any kind whatsoever on their persons" and "identify yourself to police". But you go ahead and shift those goalposts and keep telling everyone that disagrees with you fascists. Have you contacted the ACLU yet and asked them why they are fascists?

9/22/14, 8:39 AM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 224 of 224   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)